I don't mind if they don't explain explicitly everything. I'd like it if they somehow left a bit of clues for us to solve the rest of the mystery and piecing it together ourselves after the end of the series.

Its like how many licks to the center of a tootsie pop or something. We will never know. I have a friend in the middle of season 2 and none of the really crazy stuff has gone down yet. He is kinda mad since he has to get the discs from netfix to see the rest of the season since he cant watch it all online. I think they don't have the last 5 up

If ur going by netflix it lists 30 episodes but in fact 23&24 "Live together, die alone" is the season 2 finale.

you can watch seasons 1-4 instantly on netflix =]

It's kind of disappointing that they went in knowing so little. It just speaks poorly of their ability as writers. Who would ever read a book that literally brings up dozens of red herrings that lead nowhere but to make you read more in anticipation? Who would watch a movie that did the same thing?

They only did it because they could get away with it, and as I said, that is a failure. People write it off as not being a big deal, but it shows a lack of integrity, obviously a lack of vision, and weakness in their craft. It's like putting a rough draft up as the final project; it's a joke, and I can't believe the industry puts up with it. They did the same thing in Battlestar Galactica, the ending felt really far-fetched, even if much of it was hinted at from the beginning. It's REALLY not that difficult to sit and write a time-line of events and not deviate from it or add elements non-integral to it. It's their job, it's what their PAID to do, and it's one of the fucking best and funnest jobs to have, and they fuck it up because they're lazy and greedy.

I've noticed and talked with others about the difference between Japanese television dramas that are like Lost, and American ones. The Japanese television industry doesn't drag things out. They start series, they know where the series is going, and then they stop. Then they make a new series. What is wrong with having a little bit of something REALLY good? If it's at the price of making it WORSE, then there is nothing to be gained, and people that give into that are sell-outs. If they like being sell-outs, then they're also douchebags and will not be as respected in the history of their craft.

Of course, Americans don't care by and large, and of course I'm still watching anyways. But Lost could have been one of the masterpieces of television (I consider a show like "Six Feet Under" a masterpiece, and "Dexter" and "True Blood" are on their way way, though they both have the luck of having the story already written out in text), and what keeps it from being all it could be is the inadequacy of the producers, writers, and network. This will probably seem pretentious to most people, but it's not any less true. People who read real criticism as pretentious are just insecure about their lack of knowledge anyways, and calling someone pretentious is the only way of getting at them for presuming to know better.

The Japanese/American drama comparison actually brings up a good idea. Lindelof and Cuse have tried their best, it seems, to emphasis that this series has been about these specific characters. In the process, they've created this fascinating island with tons of mysteries.
If the general mysteries are going to be left open, I wouldn't be appose to another "cycle" of characters down the line that gives us MORE mysteries and answers questions we're not gonna get answered in the original series. Taking the Japanese approach may not be a bad way of continuing the franchise even as the main producers walked away from the series. With good television easily getting canned these days due to ratings, it's no easy to plan in the Japanese fashion. It's hard to pace out something so broad when you don't know if you've got 1 season or 10 to tell your story, and I think that's why it began to stabilize halfway through the third season when the deal was made to end it at 6.
It's a tough spot because a franchise like Lost, which I've also invested a lot of time into, could benefit from some awesome additions like the Star Wars EU or mediocre, at best, like the Star Wars prequels. Similarly with Lost, they've created a great universe in which to tell a story. Just because one group of kids had the time of their lives on a certain playground, doesn't mean another can't come along after and have a completely different, but just as compelling, time in the same space. I think Lost could be a great franchise to take that sort of approach of having a planned, hearty story that takes time to tell, and hopefully Disney would be willing to invest the time and resources it would take to execute because of it's established fan base.
...and, honestly, I don't need to know that the Smoke Monster is just a cloud of Midiclorians. ;)

"It's REALLY not that difficult to sit and write a time-line of events and not deviate from it or add elements non-integral to it."

It is when actors are problematic and want to leave the show (or you are forced to kick them out). Both happened on this show.

While you seem to have gone to painstaking lengths to ensure that any criticism of your post can be deflected by accusing all opposition of "lacking knowledge," know that your argument is fairly ill-informed.

Firstly, while your accusations of the writers are off-base and frankly, unfair, I have to agree with your characterization of the American network TV system. I can't speak for Japanese television, but British shows certainly are and have been driven solely by the creative forces involved, with little in the way of studio intervention, and that is to be commended indeed.

But the fact of the matter is that American television is a commercial-based medium, driven predominantly by big studios with solely financial concerns. With that in mind, the writers of LOST, for all intents and purposes, did the best that they could. And they really achieved quite a bit within that creatively-suffocating environment.

From what I understand, the beginning of the first season was constructed with, as you have said, little knowledge of where it all was heading. But with good reason: they had no idea how long they would last, if they would last, etc. They focused on the characters that first season, while raising enough interesting mysteries to make pursuing the series worthwhile, creatively.

From there, they began to map out the basic "Story of LOST." Which--again, from what I understand--includes much of what we've been watching these past few years. Naturally, the story has evolved and probably departed from the initial conception in certain areas over time, but this is in the nature of continuous, serialized storytelling.

Now the great thing that the writers achieved was setting an end date for a series that was, for all intents and purposes, a big hit for the network. This is more or less unprecedented in the world of contemporary network (stress on the network) television, and has allowed them to build toward the ending that they had in mind from that early point, instead of continuing to spin their wheels for years as many other series have done.

Now, they say that not every question will be resolved. Which is perhaps understandably upsetting, given the amount of time we've all spent pondering them. But we seem to be forgetting that there is something to be said for ambiguity within a story such as this. To demystify every single aspect of LOST would be to do a great disservice to the show, to remove an essential element that made the show so enjoyable in the first place.

The big questions, for certain, will be answered. The smaller ones? Well, why not revel in the mystery? Decide the answer for yourself, perhaps. There is a wonderful quote from director Robert Altman that I recently stumbled upon: "We sit and demand such great answers in our drama, but in our lives we'll accept anything." Just accept the mysteries for what they are: mysteries.

On a side note, opinions being what they are, I can't quite provide hard evidence against your feelings for "True Blood," but the notion that anyone could suggest that a series which is essentially nothing more than a trashy bloodsucking soap opera is even approximating the status of a masterpiece (while simultaneously taking the piss out of a series that has arguably broken more narrative television rules than any show since The Prisoner) is certainly worthy of a chuckle or two.

Just... wow. Well said.

First, I only made the point of not understanding my point because some people will sometimes make stupid replies like "Wow, what an idiot, blah blah, etc" on the merit that I'm so concerned with the issue.

You're right, and I realized later the counter-argument that it's the network's fault, and not the writers. But, still, as I said, you will never find a successful film or novel that does the same thing. Obviously it's because of the nature of the craft, so I guess my larger criticism would be towards the failure of the networks. But I don't know, the fact that they went into a show with no real plans for the future, and most network shows do this, is really disappointing. It seems like you can have a timeline set up in the event that nothing DOES go wrong, and if it's strong enough, problems that spring up will be easier to work around.

But then you have something like throwing in a scene of that girl being in the mental hospital with Hurley (that hasn't been resolved, right?), and we don't know what that was about, and there's been plenty of rumors about resolving that, but it hasn't been, and it's been over a season since it happened, so most people have forgotten and don't care. Their problem is, they make a season and fill it with questions, then in the next season they create a completely different kind of story, and whole new arch, and a whole new set of questions. So why bring up any big question which you don't have ANY answer for? If you put something in a show, it should be for a reason. Otherwise, you're David Lynch, and you aren't TRYING to be a good narrative writer, you're just trying to be "avant garde" (though, don't get me wrong, I like "Twin Peaks"). It's not really sensible to me to set a "mood" in a work by manipulating the narrative to purposefully introduce useless story elements. That's what editors are for.

They did a better job last season of not introducing anything which they didn't know what they were doing with. So, they learned from their mistakes. But they WERE in fact mistakes, and writers for new shows should learn from it, rather than repeat the obvious mistakes of others. But that would only matter if, as you said, American television wasn't so commercial. Non-network television isn't, and shows on HBO, some on Sci-Fi, and Showtime don't make the mistake. Then you have fuck-ups like Heroes, which makes it clear that the problem is with the networks.

And as for True Blood: How much of the show have you even watched? Because it's bullshit to call it a trashy soap-opera. It's no more of a soap-opera than Lost, dude. To trash-talk something because there's a strong romantic storyline is pretty stupid, and you sound pretty ignorant of the actual content of the show. 1. Allan Ball is an amazing director, I hope you realize he's also the director of Six Feet Under. 2. The actors in this show are better than most on Lost (Kate, Jack, etc.), and are so perfect for the roles that they play that it amazes me on a regular basis; again, Allan Ball knows how to cast, if you've seen Six Feet Under. 3. The content of this show is HARDLY A SOAP OPERA. Sorry for caps, but dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. First season was a murder mystery, but the second season is wrapped up in an entire mythology which makes a lot more sense than Lost ever did or will.

The merits on which True Blood is a good show aren't opinions. The writing is excellent for television. The actors play their roles well. The storyline is highly engaging. Anything else I could say doesn't need to be said, because those three things put it above most television shows.

Ultimately, it's useless to complain about things the haven't been resolved prior to the completion of the series, because the fact is we simply don't know what will and what won't be made clear. Your complaint about the Libby issue could in fact be entirely unfounded if next year we discovered why that happened.

As for True Blood, I really don't want to turn this into a huge argument, you are completely entitled to opinion, but here are things you should know: I have seen every episode of True Blood, and enjoy it. But only for what it is, which is a show that revels in violence and sex, with a secondary interest in real, compelling character work. I'm fully aware of the work of Alan Ball and appreciate Six Feet Under far more than I do True Blood, but even Ball himself cops to TB's shortcomings, saying "It's like popcorn TV — it's like a ride... It's escapist — it's totally escapist." In other words, spectacle above character.

As for your reasons why it is NOT a soap opera -- murder mystery?! Do you even know what a soap opera is? They're rife with murder mystery plots, and, most importantly, girl-going-after-the-bad-boy plots, which is arguably the emotional undercurrent of the entire show, both seasons. In addition, the "mythology" you speak of as the backbone for season 2 manifests itself in repeated, massive orgies and acts of extravagant violence and gore (i.e. eating a cake filled with a human heart). The show is naught but a juicy spectacle.

Now it is well-acted, Ill give you that, and the writing is cute and clever given the premise, and I certainly feel less shame enjoying this show than I might Twilight or The Vampire Chronicles, but I still consider it a guilty pleasure because it's shortcomings as a truly compelling, character-driven drama are all too clear to me. So please, don't pretend that that you're spouting facts when you list what you perceive to be True Blood's winning qualities. Do enjoy it, and feel free to, but the fact of the matter is, comparing it to true masterpieces of television like Deadwood and The Wire is a complete, laugh-out-loud joke.

LAWYERED!

Regardless of its escapist nature, I would disagree on the point of character work. The only reason I love the show so much is because of how compellingly strong the characters are. Almost every single character has a very strong story arch that is entirely personal to them, and every character has their own struggles that they deal with, and sometimes learn from and sometimes don't (just like in real life).

I have no idea how you can say there's no compelling character work in this. You're insulting it for it's story-content, which is absurd. Saying that violence/sex is invalid as the essence of a plot is prudish; what does Lost have in its narrative that makes it better? Six Feet Under was founded on death, full of sex and violence, and sure, it wasn't as much of a spectacle, but it also wasn't full of vampires. If you're going to have the supernatural involved, you have to stick to your style. There is nothing in the style of the show that makes it less "compelling". It says plenty about the human condition and about Southern society.

I knew "murder mystery" is a soap-opera plot, that's why there was a "but" after it. It's not fully character driven, but the characters do make up the backbone of the show. Without them, it wouldn't be good. Again, most of them reveal essences of the human condition which I find compelling enough, I don't know what more you could ask for from them. Godrick alone was singularly my favorite character I've ever seen on television. Sure, the sentiment he held wasn't "original" (nothing is original anymore), but the power of his performance in delivering the sentiment was great.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion how strongly you get pulled into the show, and I guess that's going to determine whether or not you think it's just a "soap-opera" or good story-telling. Your argument didn't rationalize to me that it is not good story-telling. It's clear that our opinions differ on what is drawing though, since I found the first episode of Deadwood to be boring.

I'm surprised you didn't argue with Dexter, which is also founded on the spectacle of murder, yet is also psychologically deep and compelling (though full of more bad actors than True Blood is). I have to say, I don't think I've been disappointed or let down by a single performance in all of True Blood except for Sookie (and that's just because her character is so annoying and useless). I'm not sure if I can say that for many other shows.

I replied to your post last night, but for some reason it's not attached to it. As it turns out, robertfrenay said basically all of the same things I did, but perhaps in a better way. However, you bring up the story of Libby and how it was never explained why she was in Santa Rosa at the same time as Hurley. As I said in my post, they had a resolution for this story, they just can't tell it on the show because Cynthia doesn't want to come back to the show. They ultimately fired her without warning, and it seems she may be bitter of that. So, in the case, they can't tell the story the way they would like (with the actual actress), so they feel that leaving it unresolved is better than some other character explaining that after Libby's husband died, she spent some time in a mental hospital. So it's not that they don't have answers, they just aren't in a position to answer every single plot thread that has been brought up. And frankly, some of them are easy enough to figure out without explicit explanation of what happened. I think it's better to create my own backstory for where Karl came from rather than have Ben say something like "There was a group of people that split themselves off from the rest of us and Karl was one of them." Those are the kinds of mysteries that don't need to be properly resolved, but the important ones like ageless Richard will be.

there are so many mysterious that i don't even remember most of them.
i absolutely love lost and i want it to continue but i don't know what they possibly do with it without ruining it.

I've been saying for a long time that the best way for LOST to live on is as an anthology comic book series. It would be a great way to answer the little mysteries and provide more background to various aspects of the show. And if it ends up sucking it'll be much more easy to discredit and disregard than another television series or movie.

Doesn't surprise me, it's actually smart.. Comics, Books, Spin-Off shows, Direct 2 DVD movies, Theatrical movies, Games.. the show has an unbelievable amount of hardcore fans this series isn't going anywhere.. question is how well will the material be after it ends? will they hire the original writing team? new team?

Gonna have to disagree with "facebook-515936236", I think they writers on this show are excellent, and though TB is in its early stages, I think Lost will leave a greater impact and rank among the best in television, more so than True Blood. Sure, they didn't have everything planned out but the characters arcs and subplots are really what keep me watching because of how well-written it is. Of course, there are a few mysteries that will go no where, but things like this happen on a TV show. Ideas change, and probably for the better.

I don't mind some little mysteries being left unanswered, but the biggies have to. The Smoke Monster, the Others, all of that has to be answered in the end.

I wouldn't mind more Lost coming to our sets as long as they kept the quality of the show as high.

It's pretty much a given they won't be able to answer all the questions they have created and they could move a few directions with the show.

1: Give us a prequel and flesh out the back story of the island properly. Who and what are Jacob and the other guy, where did they come from, how was the island enchanced, who built those big statues. How did Dharma find the island, who sent them, how did the "others" get effected by the island.. I mean so much to go over and they are certainly not going to be able to answer those questions with 17 remaining episodes.

2: Does the next season mark the end of the current Lost storyline completely or does it just try and wrap things up? The guys behind Lost have surprised us before maybe the ending of Lost isn't going to be what we think. Maybe the ending of Lost will be the beginning.

Maybe Jack is indeed the new Jacob and the people on the plane are his followers. There is something they must do or see that changes the complexion of it all. After all why did the others settle down on the island. Why are guys like Richard "special", why is Whitmore that desperate to find the island for so many decades, how did the island effect Desmond.

It looks like the time of the others is indeed running out but whoose to say the island won't effect the current cast from the plane like it did the others.

I mean unless I am forgetting something didn't the others end up on the island by accident some time ago, something like a ship break. Maybe our survivors are the new others. If that is indeed the case we can carry on their story.

3: We have so much time invested in Jack, Kate, Sawyer and the others if they were simply to just leave the island it wouldn't do it justice. I want to know what happened with their lives, what they went on to do, if they were haunted or wanted to go back etc etc etc.

4: Old cast is done time for a new cast. This is something they could try further into the future but basically half of Lost is the island and the other half is the cast. Giving up the old characters would be a bitch but as long as the island keeps throwing up surprises and interesting story lines and content it would probably work.

So I guess they'll never explain the monster then eh?

They will.

They already have........

no they havent.

Clearly some of the mysteries (the numbers, the oblique connections between characters) are there more for texture than resolution, and some of the characters intended to be major (Mr. Eko, Libby) had to fall by the wayside for whatever reason.

It's hardly been perfect (what show is? Or should be?), but "Lost" has continued to deftly solve many of its mysteries, sometimes in surprising ways. Consider the four-toed foot. Originally thought one of the more ridiculous mysteries initially, it's now not only explicable, but essential to the narrative of the story. Regardless of whether it was retconned into something vital or always intended for its goal, that's some smart storytelling.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the "Lost" producing team encouraged and rejoiced in the construction of an "end-game." That gave them the opportunity to consolidate their plans, ditch what wasn't working. You can even feel it, as the story finds a renewed pace and interest halfway through Season 3, a pace which has only increased in energy with each passing season.

Go figure that a new show like "Flash-Forward" is already being presented as a series to be told in five chapter-like seasons. I suspect that limited series will become much more popular here, as they are overseas with Spanish-language telenovelas and UK sitcoms.

As long as the big central mysteries are answered I can live with little things being left dangling. As for any thing spunn out of the show after the final episode of season six... I'll most likely pass.

To be honest I'm not that worried about what Darlton said about not answering every question. I believe they will answer all the questions that matter, leave the superfluous questions unanswered, and leave certain things vague that need to be remain vague in order to leave a certain amount of mystery intact.

Put yourselves in the writers' shoes for a moment. Imagine how many countless questions they've been swamped with over the last few years from the Lost fan community. Imagine how many times they've heard a question from a fan and wondered, "Why would anyone care about that?" There are lots of unusual things on the show that in the big picture really don't matter that much. I believe that it's for those types of questions that Darlton gave the equivalent of a legal disclaimer that not every question will be answered. Because it's true: there will be a ton of meaningless questions that won't be bothered with, because they don't matter.

I think the majority of questions that won't be answered fall under the category of "how". How do the Numbers work? When the Island moves, how does that work exactly? How does Kate's horse show up on the Island? It doesn't matter HOW they happened, you just need to accept that they do. It's a science fiction story, and certain things bog down the story if the writers feel compelled to explain the detailed inner workings of many of the mysterious things that happen. And with the example that Carlton gave of the midi-chlorians and how unnecessary it was to explain how the Force works, there are some explanations that if given are not only disappointing but are also very uninteresting.

Just as these "how" questions will most likely not be dealt with, the kinds of questions that I believe will be answered can be filed under "why". Why are the passengers of Flight 815 seemingly so important and interconnected with each other without knowing it? Why are Jacob and his Nemesis at odds with each other? Why does the subject of faith versus science keep coming up on the show? There are weightier matters that the show will address in the final season, and they will be spiritual in nature and they will deal with relationships as well. The "how" questions are interesting, but if they don't serve the vastly more important "why" questions, they will be left by the wayside, and rightfully so.

So for those who are ready for the big picture stuff to be addressed, have no fear. You will find what you are looking for in the final season. And for the important things that are only partially explained and left somewhat vague, ask yourself if you don't honestly prefer it that way and whether or not a more detailed explanation would merely make you shrug with indifference. Only those fans who get lost (no pun intended) in the details will come away from the series finale frustrated. Mark my words.

Well said! The distintion of "how" versus "why" I think is something I have been trying to put words to myself. So thanks for taking the headache away from me, and pardon my "plagarism" when I debate what's expected of the final season with my co-workers and use your argument. =)
I agree the why is important and the how, not so much. The big picture is what's important. I've spent the summer (of generally lack luster TV) rewatching Lost and I'm excited for the final season.

Why would you even want answers to everything? Where's the fun in that? As long as the biggest ones get answers I'm sattisfied. I love mysteries, and honestly, it's more fun to speculate than to get all the answers spoonfed to you.

As much as I love LOST I hope season 6 will really be the end. No spin-offs please, they will most likely be nothing compared to season 1 through 6. That said, I wouldn't mind comic books though, they could be quite interesting.

Q's i'd like to see answers to: wtf is the smoke monster? why does it show the things it does? - why are the black and white stones for? (adam & eves) - What does "having shoes on while dead" mean, when returning to the island? ( a la locke and christain) - & finally, do the main characters get to choose there fates in a "limbo" of sorts?

if the franchise should decide to live on... i might see it best as a TV show... dont know how realistic that may be, but the episodic format is really what grabbed me... the drama, the tension, the mystery, and the action... and each episode giving the viewer the amount of awareness that the creators want one to have...

i just want the end to be like the last bite of a fresh apple... so damn sweet, but shit i could use another

Every point you just raised lies in one answer, the smoke monster, which has already been revealed :x

I don't think that the excuse "Well, they didn't know how long the series was going to last," is an acceptable excuse for not having a multi-season plan right from the beginning for LOST. Both characters and setting jointly drive a story and if you concentrate on one at the expense of the other, than you are asking for trouble. When Joe Straczynski was launching BABYLON 5, studio heads and others asked him why was he spending time planning a five-year story arc when it was possible that the show could be cancelled after 13 episodes. He said, it didn't matter so much if the show was cancelled or not it mattered that he knew exactly where the story was going to go before starting to tell it.

Remember back in the early days of LOST how they stated that all of the Island's mysteries would have an explanation to be found in today's science? I think we can all agree that THAT didn't work out too well. Time travel? There's some kind of magnetic anomaly that may be causing many of these things? Really? Just because you use science words doesn't automatically make it "scientific."

At this point, I would not be surprised if Cruse had two cowboys fighting over a giant golden sphere show up on the island.

Am I the only person who didn't hate Via Domus? I would love to see more side stories like that (if you didn't play it think the Nicky/Paolo ep: "Exposé") in different media like games or books.
As for all the mysteries not be solved that's probably a good thing. This show is great because of it's ability to create speculation, and like most narratives it suffers a little when that speculation is brought to an end by a reveal.

Holy poop. The comments are longer than the article. tl;dr to all your comments.

So we watch all these years and don't get answers we deserve as a viewer?
I remember them saying we may never know about the numbers that were introduced and on the hatch. That's a bit cheat.

The numbers have already been explained, though not on the show of course. Look up the Valenzetti Equation. However, I think Lindelof recently said they would kind of hint at it later in this season.

yeah, ok, but why are they etched into the hatch door?

Will we ever know why that guy named Richard NEVER seems to age on Lost?? Because that hasn't been explained yet.

I seem to recall someone at comicon being quoted to say that there's gonna be an episode focusing on Richard this season.

One of the main reasons I keep watching Lost is to get the answers to all the questions. I really hope all the big ones are answered or I will feel cheated.

Same. After years of this shit they better lay it all on the table.

If lost doesn't finish up when it was supposed to, I suggest everyone stops watching it to save themselves the pain in later life. Your children will laugh and ask you mockingly "why did you sit through all that shit daddy when you never got any questions answered?" and you will sit there with a tear in your eye and whisper " I don't know darling, daddy doesn't know anything anymore" stop now and save yourselves!!

There's a lot to be said for the mystery and clues being better than any possible direct answer.

For example, Boba Fett was a lot cooler before he was just the son of some guy named Jango.

As long as they give us clues then it's all I need. Like how they never explicitly explained the cold room and the polar bears. But then based on the bear cage and the bear skeleton in tunisia you can figure out that the polar bears were trained to move the island.

Brilliant example. If most smaller things were explained in such manner, I'd be happier than having everything spoon-fed to the audience.

As a huge LOST fan, I'd like to have anwsers to most mysteries but not literally everything. I mean if they never explain the hurley bird I'd be cool with it. I want to know who dropped off the food in season 2, and other such things.

Filmbuffrich: Remember back in the early days of LOST how they stated that all of the Island's mysteries would have an explanation to be found in today's science? I think we can all agree that THAT didn't work out too well. Time travel? There's some kind of magnetic anomaly that may be causing many of these things? Really? Just because you use science words doesn't automatically make it "scientific."


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Exactly. Has everyone forgotten about this? Because my friends and I certainly haven't. That's the whole reason that we're so invested in the mysteries; because they're seemingly SOLVABLE.

Dudes need to stop making 'midichlorians/boba fett was cooler before jango' comparisons, because that's entirely different. Star Wars begins with 'A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away'! IT PRETTY MUCH TELLS YOU THAT YOU'RE IN FOR SOME STRANGE SHIT.

@ facebook-515936236 You don't know what you are talking about because the series isn't over yet. Sure they said some mysteries won't be solved, but that doesn't mean they didn't have one in the first place. They simply don't have enough time, or in some cases the resources, to answer everything. They gave a for instance in that Libby will not be back to fill in the missing gap in her story. That is not a huge mystery, and they had a plan for it. The problem is that Cynthia doesn't want to go back for one episode since they essentially abruptly fired her. Though this can be the case in TV, it's still an abrupt loss of a job.

There has been an end-game for Lost for a long time. If not from the very beginning, at least somewhere in the first season. They knew where they were going and had planned out many milestones along the way. What they didn't plan is exactly how the story would play out in between those milestones. And honestly, how can you expect them to? They didn't know how long the show was going to be on the air. Midway through the 3rd season is when they negotiated an end for the show, and ever since then they have been working out the story. At that point they knew exactly how much time they had and could plan accordingly. So what if we don't learn why Widmore's name was on a pregnancy test? The major mysteries are going to have some sort of a conclusion. Other mysteries can be figured out on your own, and it may even be better that way. Having certain things open, like the origin of the statue, allows fans to discuss their own ideas. If we had every single thing explained to us, there would be almost nothing left to talk about when the show was over. The experience would be the same for everyone. By being able to fill in the blanks on your own, you make it your own TV show and can discuss it with others to see how their experience was.

My point is that you attack the writers for doing a bad job, and even go so far as to say they failed, when really you have no idea what goes on between the writers other than what they tell us. And what they told us is what I said in my post. They don't have time to tie up every single loose end, but that doesn't mean they were red herrings or just made up to fill time.

I just want to know why birds commit suicide by flying into windows when they see Walt.